On 2012-07-05 22:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 04:27:33PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-07-05 15:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:42:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
This optimization was once used in qemu-kvm to keep KVM route usage low
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 04:27:33PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-07-05 15:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:42:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> This optimization was once used in qemu-kvm to keep KVM route usage low.
> >> But now we solved that problem via lazy upd
On 2012-07-05 15:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:42:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> This optimization was once used in qemu-kvm to keep KVM route usage low.
>> But now we solved that problem via lazy updates.
>
> What if we are using vhost which AFAIK can't use the lazy
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:42:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> This optimization was once used in qemu-kvm to keep KVM route usage low.
> But now we solved that problem via lazy updates.
What if we are using vhost which AFAIK can't use the lazy path?
> It also tried to handle
> the case of vectors
This optimization was once used in qemu-kvm to keep KVM route usage low.
But now we solved that problem via lazy updates. It also tried to handle
the case of vectors shared between different sources of the same device.
However, this never really worked and will have to be addressed
differently anyw
